[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <X/Ux6CT6EsP+QQ8S@chrisdown.name>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2021 03:43:36 +0000
From: Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>
To: Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>
Cc: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, andi.kleen@...el.com,
"Chen, Tim C" <tim.c.chen@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>, Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: memcg: add a new MEMCG_UPDATE_BATCH
Feng Tang writes:
>One further thought is, there are quite some "BATCH" number in
>kernel for perf-cpu/global data updating, maybe we can add a
>global flag 'sysctl_need_accurate_stats' for
> if (sysctl_need_accurate_stats)
> batch = SMALLER_BATCH
> else
> batch = BIGGER_BATCH
Moving decisions like this to the system administrator is not really a solution
to the problem -- inclusion should at least be contingent on either having
"correct-ish" stats exported to userspace. Displaying broken stats to the user
-- even with a configuration knob -- is less than ideal and is likely to
confuse and confound issues in future.
I would also like to see numbers from more real-world workloads.
MEMCG_CHARGE_BATCH is certainly fairly arbitrary as-is, but if it is going to
be changed, the reason for that change and its implications (positive and
negative) for real-world workloads must be well understood, and I'm not sure
we're there yet.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists